TARUN PAHWA Vs. PRADEEP MAKIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the order passed by the Ld. Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in Eviction Petition No. 25/2010, decided on 23.11.2011; whereby the Ld. ARC has allowed the application filed by the respondent for leave to defend the eviction petition.

(2.) Briefly stating the facts, the petitioner herein is the landlord of the suit premises i.e. one hall on the ground floor, forming part of property no. 25/8, B-11, Gali No. 7, New Rothak Road, Industrial Area, Anand Parbat, New Delhi 110005. The respondent is a tenant in respect of the suit premises, under the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 638/- excluding other charges. The suit premises were initially let out to the father of the respondent by Late Sh. Daulat Ram in the year 1977. Late Sh. Daulat Ram sold the property to the petitioner vide an Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.1979.Thereafter, the petitioner became the landlord of the suit premises and the father of the respondent herein started paying the rent to the petitioner. After the death of the father of the respondent, the respondent has been paying the rent to the petitioner. In the year 2010, the petitioner required the suit premises for his wife, who wanted to set up a unit for manufacturing artificial jewellery and therefore, filed for an eviction before the Ld. ARC. He contended that his wife had done the course of jewellery making in the year 2003, but due to the birth of a baby, she was unable to start her business back then. He also contended that the suit premise is located in an industrial area, which is suitable for setting up a manufacturing unit and also it was near to his residential place.

(3.) In the leave to defend application filed by the respondent, it was contended before the Ld. ARC that the petitioner did not possess any document to support his title over the suit premises and that an Agreement to Sell by itself does not confer any title upon the petitioner. The respondent also contended that the petitioner has not revealed the full extent of properties held by him and his family members, or which have been disposed off by sale or even otherwise let out on rentals to third parties till before the institution of the eviction petition. He submitted that the lands comprised in the locality of the suit premises had already been acquired by the Union of India as well as the Delhi Development Authority. In connection with this the respondent filed the site plan contending that the portion adjacent to the suit premises had been constructed by the petitioner without the permission of the Union of India/DDA/MCD and built four floors, which have been let out.